4 ms·

This movie is trash, and removing it is a good thing. But I'm very uncomfortable with the power of these private companies to censor and shape public opinion.

by eloff 7y ago

This movie is trash, and removing it is a good thing. But I'm very uncomfortable with the power of these private companies to censor and shape public opinion. Will we have a Facebook influenced the election scandal similar to what happened with Russia? What happens when they silence an unpopular voice that is nevertheless true? Are we all not therefore poorer as a result? It feels like a black mirror episode in the making.

thephyber 7y ago
YouTube has long been problematic with their removal of content (especially unsupportable copyright claims), but when it comes to this issue I don't care. Facebook and Twitter are still struggling to come up with guiding principles for content moderation and to distribute and standardize them to tens of thousands of moderators, so I'm willing to give them some leeway. The core issue is: nobody has an expectation that they are guaranteed their (stupid) content _must_ be accepted by a social media platform. So long as a person can make+host their own website or torrent for the controversial content (yes, I get that this is much higher friction), all that is lost is the _convenience_ to _find_ the content. I'd wager the Anarchist's Cookbook and issues of the ISIS magazines are still bouncing around the internet somewhere, but they shouldn't be available for the average teenager to stumble upon when their crazy uncle shares/retweets it to the world. It's a quick way to empower angst and anti-government sentiment among those who feel powerless (literally the recipe for terrorism). The only thing I dislike about the removal of this video content is that it gives the gullible conspiracy theorists the "they are removing it because they know it's true!!1!" argument.
- eloff 7y ago
  I mostly agree except that convenience is everything. Without the distribution a video is just a string of bits. if nobody can find it, it doesn't matter what the content of the video is - it doesn't exist.
  - aspenmayer 6y ago
    It seems like a variant of the Library of Babel problem with a Traveling Salesman twist.
aspenmayer 7y ago
When you can’t even search for it, it’s like it never even existed at all. It’s insidiously subversive. I agree with all of your points. It’s a trash video, this time. Next time, who knows? We may never know it’s happened, or how many times it’s happened before without our notice or consent. Mandatory labeling of removed content out to be legally mandated. If I don’t know what was removed and why, how can I not be harmed unintentionally via unknown unknowns?
- aspenmayer 7y ago
  Post-edit for spelling/clarity: Mandatory labeling of removed content ought to be legally mandated.
Nasrudith 7y ago
The ability to shape the public opinion by their publication has always been in place - even when they were town criers or bards. For better or worse there is no sane mechanism one way or another. Everyone is free to speak but there is no obligation to listen, propagate, or provide an audience.
mellow2020 7y ago
> What happens when they silence an unpopular voice that is nevertheless true? We're well past that, even popular voices that say true things are silenced with regularity now, e.g. this interview with Chomsky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-N3In2rLI4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-N3In2rLI4 Here is a reupload of it, judge for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CftLGLKvb_U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CftLGLKvb_U Yes, I can't even prove it's a reupload, the first link could be anything.. but that lack of transparency isn't my fault, I know what I bookmarked anyway. I cannot prove it, but I also cannot unsee "tech" pulling stunts like this and people who claim moral integrity standing on the sidelines. That they are "poorer" as a result isn't the problem, that the people who aren't doing that are poorer as a result is what matters.

by eloff 7y ago

thephyber 7y ago

YouTube has long been problematic with their removal of content (especially unsupportable copyright claims), but when it comes to this issue I don't care. Facebook and Twitter are still struggling to come up with guiding principles for content moderation and to distribute and standardize them to tens of thousands of moderators, so I'm willing to give them some leeway. The core issue is: nobody has an expectation that they are guaranteed their (stupid) content _must_ be accepted by a social media platform. So long as a person can make+host their own website or torrent for the controversial content (yes, I get that this is much higher friction), all that is lost is the _convenience_ to _find_ the content. I'd wager the Anarchist's Cookbook and issues of the ISIS magazines are still bouncing around the internet somewhere, but they shouldn't be available for the average teenager to stumble upon when their crazy uncle shares/retweets it to the world. It's a quick way to empower angst and anti-government sentiment among those who feel powerless (literally the recipe for terrorism). The only thing I dislike about the removal of this video content is that it gives the gullible conspiracy theorists the "they are removing it because they know it's true!!1!" argument.

eloff 7y ago
I mostly agree except that convenience is everything. Without the distribution a video is just a string of bits. if nobody can find it, it doesn't matter what the content of the video is - it doesn't exist.
- aspenmayer 6y ago
  It seems like a variant of the Library of Babel problem with a Traveling Salesman twist.

aspenmayer 7y ago

When you can’t even search for it, it’s like it never even existed at all. It’s insidiously subversive. I agree with all of your points. It’s a trash video, this time. Next time, who knows? We may never know it’s happened, or how many times it’s happened before without our notice or consent. Mandatory labeling of removed content out to be legally mandated. If I don’t know what was removed and why, how can I not be harmed unintentionally via unknown unknowns?

aspenmayer 7y ago
Post-edit for spelling/clarity: Mandatory labeling of removed content ought to be legally mandated.

Nasrudith 7y ago

The ability to shape the public opinion by their publication has always been in place - even when they were town criers or bards. For better or worse there is no sane mechanism one way or another. Everyone is free to speak but there is no obligation to listen, propagate, or provide an audience.

mellow2020 7y ago

> What happens when they silence an unpopular voice that is nevertheless true? We're well past that, even popular voices that say true things are silenced with regularity now, e.g. this interview with Chomsky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-N3In2rLI4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-N3In2rLI4 Here is a reupload of it, judge for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CftLGLKvb_U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CftLGLKvb_U Yes, I can't even prove it's a reupload, the first link could be anything.. but that lack of transparency isn't my fault, I know what I bookmarked anyway. I cannot prove it, but I also cannot unsee "tech" pulling stunts like this and people who claim moral integrity standing on the sidelines. That they are "poorer" as a result isn't the problem, that the people who aren't doing that are poorer as a result is what matters.